Port Washington Union Free School District v. Port Washington Teachers Ass'n

2 Citing cases

  1. City of Long Beach v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 3755 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 45 times

    The employer voluntarily negotiated job security (tenure) provisions thereby limiting its own discretion in layoff situations. ( Matter of Professional, Clerical, Tech. Empls. Assn. [Buffalo Bd. of Educ], 90 NY2d 364; Matter of Heslin v City of Cohoes, 74 AD2d 393; Matter of Niagara Wheatfield Adm'rs Assn. [Niagara Wheatfield Cent. School Dist.], 44 NY2d 68; Matter of Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port Washington Teachers Assn., 45 NY2d 746; Matter of Marcellus Cent. School Dist. [Marcellus School Off Personnel Assn.], 477 AD2d 935; Matter of Board of Educ. of Yonkers City School Dist. v Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers, 40 NY2d 268; Board of Educ., Bellmore-Merrick Cent. High School Dist., Nassau County v Bellmore-Merrick United Secondary Teachers, 39 NY2d 167; Matter of Associated Teachers of Huntington v Board of Educ., Union Free School Dist. No. 3, Town of Huntington, 33 NY2d 229; Board of Educ of Union Free School Dist. No. 3 of Town of Huntington v Associated Teachers of Huntington, 30 NY2d 122; Matter of Burke v Bowen, 40 NY2d 264.) Corey E. Klein, Corporation Counsel, Long Beach, for respondent. I.

  2. Matter of Nor-Nor Cent. Sch. Bd. of Educ

    67 A.D.2d 1058 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)   Cited 1 times

    " As Special Term noted in its decision, the question of timeliness of filing the grievance would be for the arbitrator to decide. However, Special Term erred in finding that the subject provision for the grant of a preference to seniority after finding the applicants equal in all other respects would violate public policy (Matter of Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v. Port Washington Teachers Assn., 45 N.Y.2d 746; see, also, Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v. Port Washington Teachers Assn., 45 N.Y.2d 411). Further, the demand for arbitration alleges a "dispute" as to the application of the contract and the most cursory examination of the applicable provisions of article XII of the agreement (section III) as quoted hereinabove establishes that such matters were unequivocally committed to the process of arbitration (Matter of South Colonie Cent. School Dist. v. Longo, 43 N.Y.2d 136, 141; cf. Matter of Acting Supt. of Schools of Liverpool Cent. School Dist. [United Liverpool Faculty Assn.], 42 N.Y.2d 509). Finally, the contention of the petitioner that article IX of the agreement (Management Rights) would reserve this issue solely to its board of education is without any merit. The management provision is explicitly made subject to all other express provisons of the contract.